You talking about chapter 5?
Oh that, I actually enjoyed Guarma, too, though most people apparently didn't.Nah, quite liked that. I meant:
The choice between going back for the money or helping John.
I played honourably, so unless there were quite drastic changes to cut-scenes leading up to that moment when playing dishonourably, it seems hugely out of place. If they could change cut-scenes to that extent - which I wouldn't put past them - they could've chopped that choice. Morgan was adamant on saving John up to that point, so it was unnecessarily jarring.
Micah and Dutch turning up was a bit "Huh?" too, but neither were too detrimental.
Absolutely incredible. I hope John finds Micah and fucks him up.
Fucking Pinkertons killed my horse, Silas, though... 😭
Oh that, I actually enjoyed Guarma, too, though most people apparently didn't.
Yeah, that did seem weirdly out of character. I helped John, so I wouldn't know how that other choice would have played out. Although I'd say that since the major plot points are set, it's probably more similar than we think.
What happens in each of them?Spoilers for the choice
There are four different ways Arthur's ending plays out based on honor and that choice
- High honor, Arthur saves John - best ending
- High honor, Arthur goes back for the money
- Low honor, Arthur saves John
- Low honor - Arthur goes back for the money - worst ending
What happens in each of them?
I though the only difference is basically that with low honour Micah kills Arthur as opposed to leaving him to die.
Oh that, I actually enjoyed Guarma, too, though most people apparently didn't.
Yeah, that did seem weirdly out of character. I helped John, so I wouldn't know how that other choice would have played out. Although I'd say that since the major plot points are set, it's probably more similar than we think.
Finally got to the end of Chapter Six and I've had it since release.
Barring a minor narrative misstep, it has been a fucking incredible game so far. Arthur Morgan has to rank as one of the best realised characters in gaming. The acting is terrific.
Cutscene happened and I literally shouted "HOLY SHIT!"
I wonder if the next game would be Redemption 3 or a new installment in the Red Dead series (kinda like Revolver->Redemption).
Nah, quite liked that. I meant:
The choice between going back for the money or helping John.
I played honourably, so unless there were quite drastic changes to cut-scenes leading up to that moment when playing dishonourably, it seems hugely out of place. If they could change cut-scenes to that extent - which I wouldn't put past them - they could've chopped that choice. Morgan was adamant on saving John up to that point, so it was unnecessarily jarring.
Micah and Dutch turning up was a bit "Huh?" too, but neither were too detrimental.
Absolutely incredible. I hope John finds Micah and fucks him up.
Fucking Pinkertons killed my horse, Silas, though... 😭
My only complaint about chapter 5 was that it felt half finished. I would've liked it to be way more fleshed out and open to explore. It was a nice change of pace, but the tempo felt a bit too high, because you were channeled from mission to mission immediately.
Fucking same, man.
I really liked his cheeky, brotherly relationship with Arthur ☹.
The facial mo-capping was excellent in places. It just gave you everything, you know?
I wanted RDR to follow the GTA style before release, but was pleasantly surprised with this. Not sure there's much more story to tell though, so some fresh faces would be good.
Having said that, I have to admit that I wouldn't be against a Langdon Ricketts focused game...
Right, it's one of those false choices that Rockstar puts in their games. SImilarly, in GTAV they gave you the choice of choosing to kill Michael or Trevor, or go down together (where you survive). It was such a stupid decision, just tacked onto give the game "multiple endings," but the one *true* ending was to go down together (I originally chose to kill Michael, stupidly, because I figured if we went down guns blazing we'd all die, and I had stuff I wanted to keep playing). That false choice story ending actually kinda ruined GTAV for me, it prevented "the good ending" from having a lasting impact on me because I originally chose "a bad ending," And it forced this storyline out of nowhere that made no sense.
Similar in RDRII, even if you're have low honor, most of the cutscenes nd conversations play out the same, so that false choice at the end doesn't really make sense.
I was dying for a Landon Rickets prequel to RDR, set in Mexico, and we never got it. SImilarly, I was dying for a Sadie Adler prequel/contemporary story in RDR2 and I'm sure we'll never get it. Rockstar has gold bars to sell, aint no time for story DLC.
Still I was kinda happy with Undead Nightmare, it was a great addon, but I was still hoping for some more expansion of a canon story.
I have been playing RDR2 since februari, doing every quest, exploring every inch of the map… Even didn't get back to camp for three months, just to find out if they would say anything about it.
Man, never realized i liked Arthur so much! So sad that he's gone. And then suddenly you play as John 8 years later. Everything is leading up to RDR1.
Never, ever imagined that we get half the map of RDR1 after 'the end'! I only thought Blackwater and Great Plains where accessible. Tears in my eyes to see the desert, Tumbleweed, Armadillo is such beautiful graphics. Still remember a lot of tracks from part 1. It's gonna take me another month to explore every inch of it!
the character writing in GTA V was ace, but the satire and the plot in general were kind of bad, still one of my all time favorite gamesI think GTAV was pretty well written, though the constant need to be edgy, childish, and immature -- a staple of the GTA series -- persists through most of it. RDR doesn't have that same requirement to be edgy and immature, so they can cut out the elements that give you the doucheshivers.
Like, in GTA, every sports team is a homoerotic joke ... all of them ... any reference to sports at any moment in any of the GTA games is a joke about homoeroticism, and it's just like, guys, we get it, you hate sports and think all sports dudes are in the closet, cool, we got the joke 15 years ago in GTA:SA. Likewise with political jokes; I think the Housers follow a sort of Bill-Maher-esque political jabbing... Like, they're certainly more to the left politically, but try to take the piss out of the left as much as they take the piss out of the right, and this forces some really lame jokes into the games.
I think there's some really quality writing in GTAV, but just about every character is a caricature of a character, which forces some lame ass writing into the game. RDR doesn't take that approach with *every* character, just some of the unusual characters (like, say, Seth or the Professor from RDR1, or in RDR2... maybe some of the 'Strangers and Freaks' which are all minor characters). In GTAV, every character but Michael and Franklin are stereotypical shells of characters, they're just caricatures of characters. The vapid wife, idiot son, Trevor's littany of morons, all of the bad guys are fucking insufferable douchebag idiots, etc.
RDR takes a more serious approach with its characters. Dutch is actually a character, not a caricature. Sadie, Arthur, Abigail, etc., are all characters, not caricatures of characters. This frees them up to make them into realistic characters with actual motivations, not superficial bull shit, which I think liberates their writing from the insufferable douchiness of a lot of the GTA series. But, still, I think there's examples of great videogame writing in GTA. Like, RDR2 is definitely the best written mainstream game, but GTAV isn't far behind, and GTA:SA is fairly close behind that, etc.
the character writing in GTA V was ace, but the satire and the plot in general were kind of bad, still one of my all time favorite games
RDR 2 is clearly a more serious game though
maybe i missed it, but does anyone get the feeling that Arthur didn't like John in the beginning of the game?
maybe i missed it, but does anyone get the feeling that Arthur didn't like John in the beginning of the game?
I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole after watching this video; seeing the actors who played the characters talking candidly about the experience is much more entertaining than I anticipated. It helps that Roger Clark (Arthur) and Benjamin Byron Davis (Dutch) are really funny guys. Roger Clark is Irish, so he was putting on an accent to play Arthur, but Benjamin Byron Davis just used his regular speaking voice; it's so weird hearing Dutch's voice coming out of a giant man.
I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole after watching this video; seeing the actors who played the characters talking candidly about the experience is much more entertaining than I anticipated. It helps that Roger Clark (Arthur) and Benjamin Byron Davis (Dutch) are really funny guys. Roger Clark is Irish, so he was putting on an accent to play Arthur, but Benjamin Byron Davis just used his regular speaking voice; it's so weird hearing Dutch's voice coming out of a giant man.
I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole after watching this video; seeing the actors who played the characters talking candidly about the experience is much more entertaining than I anticipated. It helps that Roger Clark (Arthur) and Benjamin Byron Davis (Dutch) are really funny guys. Roger Clark is Irish, so he was putting on an accent to play Arthur, but Benjamin Byron Davis just used his regular speaking voice; it's so weird hearing Dutch's voice coming out of a giant man.
Yeah. Arthur was a brawler in a big brutish way. Charles was big but he looked like he had some finesse too; Arthur couldn't just overwhelm him with size, so the extra agility favors Charles. But Arthur would also fight dirty and pull a knife or gun if he thought he would lose. Just a straight up fist fight? I'm taking Charles.this is a nerdy question
Do you guys think Charles could of bested a Prime Arthur in a fight?
it's interesting that Charles could theoretically be a greater fighter, but Arthur is a greater enforcerYeah. Arthur was a brawler in a big brutish way. Charles was big but he looked like he had some finesse too; Arthur couldn't just overwhelm him with size, so the extra agility favors Charles. But Arthur would also fight dirty and pull a knife or gun if he thought he would lose. Just a straight up fist fight? I'm taking Charles.
Arthur is still a better enforcer than Charles it seems thoughYeah. Arthur was a brawler in a big brutish way. Charles was big but he looked like he had some finesse too; Arthur couldn't just overwhelm him with size, so the extra agility favors Charles. But Arthur would also fight dirty and pull a knife or gun if he thought he would lose. Just a straight up fist fight? I'm taking Charles.
Nah, nothing yetSo I'll be picking this up on Steam when it releases in December. Is there any indication on when in December it's releasing though?
I remember reading this somewhere as well. Maybe Eurogamer?Do not quote me on this as I can't recall where I read this, but I think some of the new changes Valve made to their policy for games (to try to lessen another Metro Exodus situation of a game being advertised/sold on STEAM and then being pulled for another store) said somewhere that a game can only be delayed 30 days before it has to be released on STEAM if it's already out on another store. That would put it by Dec 5th.
That said, that may have only affected games that already have STEAM pages, which Red Dead Redemption II does not have as of yet.
I could also be completely remembering the entire thing wrong and none of this is true.
It only affects games that had steam pages, to stop a situation like Metro Exodus.Do not quote me on this as I can't recall where I read this, but I think some of the new changes Valve made to their policy for games (to try to lessen another Metro Exodus situation of a game being advertised/sold on STEAM and then being pulled for another store) said somewhere that a game can only be delayed 30 days before it has to be released on STEAM if it's already out on another store. That would put it by Dec 5th.
That said, that may have only affected games that already have STEAM pages, which Red Dead Redemption II does not have as of yet.
I could also be completely remembering the entire thing wrong and none of this is true.
As far as a point of no return, there's a mission in Chapter 6 called "Our Best Selves." It's technically not the last mission in the game, but that's the one that starts you down a path where you will no longer be able to free-roam through the end of the main quest.So, I'm currently playing through the game and probably getting near towards the end (I should be close to the end of chapter 6) and I have some questions that will determine my progression - I guess, I'll put everything into spoilers:
So, I know that there are epilogues in this game ( I don't know what they consist of though, so please don't spoil me), but are those also points of no return? I have been going through every sidequest that would pop up on my map, but is there still something I should actively seek out before reaching the end of the game? Interesting hidden sidequests or stuff that you would normaly not run into and that can't be reached after certain story points? For example I haven't found all the bodies of the serial killer yet - I think one is still missing - stuff like that? So that I would reconsider doing story missions, but focus on the other stuff instead now.
As for the game itself I'm growing a little bit tired of it, now that I feel like I traveled through the entire map several times with no further implication what to explore next and now that I have hunted enough and done enough of those challenges the gameplay really starts lacking after riding from one story mission to the next one, but I have to admit that the story is getting much more intense and it is enough to draw me back in!
Full patch notes:There was an update this morning for rdr 2 on ps4? Any idea what it brings?